Supreme Court Cases Study Guide

Marbury v. Madison:(1803) Judicial review In 1801, Justice William Marbury was to have received a commission from President Adams, but Secretary of State James Madison refused to issue the commission. Chief Justice Marshall stated that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was the basis for Marbury's claim, conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. Marbury did not receive the commission. This case determined that the Supreme Court and not the states would have the ultimate word on whether an issue was in violation of the Constitution. The ruling, based on judicial review, made the Judicial Branch equal to the other two branches of government. Fletcher v. Peck: (1810) Contracts and State law Following amassivebriberyscandalthatinvolvedalmosttheentireGeorgialegislaturein 1794, the legislature authorized the sale of thirty-five million acres to four companies for less than 2 cents an acre. In the 1796 elections nearly all the legislators were dismissed and replaced. The new legislators rescinded the land grant. However, purchasers of the grant had already started selling off the land. The Supreme Court judged that when the state of Georgia rescinded a land grant it was unconstitutional since it revoked the rights already granted in the contract. This was the first case to declare a state law in violation of the Constitution. . Dartmouth College v. Woodward: (1819) Contracts and State law The New Hampshire legislature amended the original charter of the college, which had been in place since 1769, to make the college more accessible to the public. The problem was that the legislature acted without consultation with the college trustee. The Supreme Court ruled that the original charter was inviolable as the charter was a contract. This decision led to a strengthening of property rights against state abridgement. McCulloch v. Maryland: (1819) Implied powers James Madison created a national bank, The state of Maryland believed this was an intrusion into states' rights and attempted to tax the bank. James McCullough, who worked at the bank, refused to pay the state taxes because he believed the state had no right to tax a national bank. Marshall stated. That the bank was incompliance with the constitution and could not be subjected to state taxes. This case established the rule that states could not tax an institution of the federal government. Gibbons v. Ogden: (1824) Interstate commerce Act issue was the right to carry passengers along a canal from New York to New Jersey. The state of New York had granted Aaron Ogden the exclusive right. The federal government issued a license to Thomas Gibbons for the same route. On appeal the case went to the Supreme Court after Ogden sued Gibbons and won. The Supreme Court decided that Gibbons was right and that states cannot stop Congress regulating' interstate commerce. This was a landmark case because it established federal authority over the states. This became the basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia: (1831) State law and Indians The Cherokee Indians had been farming the land in the western part of the state and had established their own government. The Georgians passed laws and tried to have the Cherokee government declared null and void. The Cherokee nation brought the suit to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Cherokee nation was a foreign entity and therefore the state of Georgia had no rights. Marshall knew that if he ruled in favor of the Indians, President Jackson would not enforce the ruling. So Marshall ruled that the Cherokee nation did not constitute a foreign nation. Thus the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the Cherokee nation.

Worcester v. Georgia: (1832) State law and Indians in Worcester v. Georgia John Marshall invalidated a Georgia law concerning entry into the Cherokee nation. In this case Worcester, a missionary, sued on the grounds that the state had no right to control any aspect of the...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...﻿American Government
SupremeCourtCases
Monumental SupremeCourtCases
The first courtcase under the spotlight is Plessy vs. Ferguson. This segregation case, that discusses racial barriers between blacks and whites, took place in 1896. Chief Justice Melville Fuller presided over the case.
In 1890, the state of Louisiana passed a law, named the Separate Car Act, that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars. This law not only aggravated many citizens, but many railcar companies because of the extra amount of cars required to accommodate the law. On June 7, 1892, Homer Plessy purchased a first class ticket for a train heading to Covington, Louisiana from New Orleans. Plessy was born a free man and had the appearance of a white man but was one-eighth black and considered a black man under Louisiana law. Plessy was arrested shortly after sitting down in a vacant seat in the whites-only car.
In his case, Homer Adolph Plessy v. The State of Louisiana, Plessy's lawyers argued that the Separate Car Act, which required East Louisiana Railroad to segregate train cars, had denied him his rights under the Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution, which provided for equal treatment under the law. However, the judge presiding over the case...

...Jefferson took office. The new president instructed Secretary of State James Madison to withhold delivery of the commissions. Marbury sought mandamus in the SupremeCourt, requiring James Madison to deliver his commission.
Issue. Is Marbury entitled to mandamus from the SupremeCourt?
Held. No. Case dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
As the President signed Marbury’s commission after his confirmation, the appointment has been made, and Marbury has a right to the commission
Given that the law imposed a duty on the office of the president to deliver Marbury’s commission, that the SupremeCourt has the power to review executive actions when the executive acts as an officer of the law and the nature of the writ of mandamus to direct an officer of the government “to do a particular thing therein specified,” mandamus is the appropriate remedy, if available to the SupremeCourt.
To issue mandamus to the Secretary of State really is to sustain an original action, which is (in this case) outside the constitutional limits of jurisdiction imposed on the SupremeCourt.
Discussion. The importance of Marbury v. Madison is both political and legal. Although the case establishes the traditions of judicial review and a litigable constitution on which the remainder of constitutional law rests, it...

...﻿SupremeCourtCaseStudy
Media Center Research:
Presentations:
Choose one SupremeCourtcase from approved list provided in class.
Download the format below from Edline.
Each bullet must be answered in a complete sentence. Punctuation and spelling will be part of the grade. [10 points each]
Attach Citation sheet (Noodletools). [20 points]
Class presentation. [20 points]
References will be cited by using Noodletools – MLA Advance.
Two sources must be cited. You will investigate your case by using www.oyez.org, www.landmarkcases.org, www.billofrightsinstitute.org, www.lawschool.cornell.edu. and/or the book SupremeCourt Drama, etc.
One source must be from an approved website (listed above) and the other source from an electronic database (Gale Virtual Reference Library) or resource book.
Student Name: _Eric Czmyr_ Period: _2__
SupremeCourtCase Title:_Griswold v. Connecticut__ Date: _11/20/14__
Case Facts:
Petitioner (name of who is bringing the case to court) or Appellant.
[Include background: Life, Age, Photo, Occupation, Location, etc.]
Estelle Griswold, 65 years old, worked at New Haven Planned Parenthood
Respondent (name of who is defending the case) or Appellee.
[Include background: Logo, Photo, Map, etc.]...

...Dred Scott Case – The SupremeCourt Decision
“…they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges that instrument provides for and secure to citizens of the United States (Taney).”
Historical Context:
Dr. John Emerson, who was a United States Army Surgeon, bought Dred Scott, a slave born into slavery. Emerson was a citizen of Missouri, although Scott and his master spent much time in Illinois and the Territory of Wisconsin. In these two places, slavery was prohibited due to the provisions under the Missouri Compromise. Following the death of Emerson in 1846, Scott sued in 1847 for his freedom with claims that his crossing to free soil made him free. Losing his case in the state courts, Scott became into possession of John Sanford, abolitionist from New York, who aided Scott’s case by taking it to the federal courts (Dred Scott Case). This was possible due to the matter involving disputes between the residents of different states. The Dred Scott case eventually reached the SupremeCourt as Dred Scott v. Sanford. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney presided this case; he was the writer of the Majority Opinion in the ruling of the Dred Scott case.
Thesis:
Chief Justice Roger B....

...SupremeCourtCases
Engle vs. Vitale
Case: In the late 1950's the New York State Board of Regents wrote and adopted a prayer, which was supposed to be nondenominational. The board recommended that students in public schools say the prayer on a voluntary basis every morning. In New Hyde Park Long Island a parent sued the school claiming that the prayer violated the first amendment of the constitution. The school argued that the prayer was nondenominational and did not attempt to "establish or endorse" a religion and thus that it did not violate the establishment clause.
Constitutional issue it relates to: Freedom of Religion
Decision: The court ruled against the school district and upheld the establishment clause of the first amendment. Prayer in schools was to be considered unconstitutional.
Lemon vs. Kurtzman
Case: Pennsylvania's law included paying the salaries of teachers in parochial schools, assisting the purchasing of textbooks, and other teaching supplies, as required by Pennsylvania's Non-Public Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968. In Rhode Island, the State paid 15% of the salaries of private school teachers as mandated by the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act of 1969. In both cases the teachers were teaching secular, not religious, subjects.
Constitutional issue it relates to: Freedom of Religion
Decision: Arguments were made on...

...Louis
Ap. Us pd. 7
10/30/12
SupremeCourt
Marbury vs. Madison (1803):
On the final of his presidency, John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia with the “Midnight Appointments”. “The Midnight Appointments” were an attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary prior to Thomas Jefferson taking office.
The commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by acting Secretary of State John Marshall (who later became Chief Justice of the SupremeCourt and author of this opinion), but they were not delivered before the termination of Adams’s presidency. Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the commissions, claiming that they were invalid because they had not been delivered by the end of Adams’s term.
In the case of Marbury v Madison, the actual suit was William Marbury applying to the SupremeCourt of the United States to compel James Madison, Jefferson’s Secretary of State, to deliver the commissions.
The constitutional issue present in the case was whether or not the SupremeCourt had the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether or not they are unconstitutional, making them void. The other Constitutional issue in the case was whether or not Congress can expand the scope the...

...Madison refused to give them their jobs and 4 of them (one of them Marbury) sued them. John Marshall is chief justice. It’s a weird situation because either way will go bad for him – if he rules for Marbury and pres had to give guy his job then there was a risk that president wouldn’t listen which means that would ruin supremecourt legitimacy. If he ruled for madison then that would increase legitimacy of SCOTUS.
SOLUTION
Marshall sees that Marbury took to SCOTUS first and he questioned whether they had jurisdiction on the issue or not. When Congress modified powers of supremecourt, the Congress did not have jurisdiction to modify powers of the branches. Only way to modify powers is to amend the Constitution. “Sorry Mr. Marbury, we can’t do anything for you as we don’t have jurisdiction.” Case was dismissed and created precedent for judicial review.
McCulloch v. Maryland
PROBLEM?
Maryland tried to stop operation of Second Bank of US by taxing all notes not chartered in Maryland. They wanted to destroy the bank. As the Second Bank of the US was the only non-Maryland based bank in Maryland, this was obviously targeting the US bank.
SOLUTION
The Court allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers, provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the Constitution. They...

...interpretation and final execution of federal laws in the United States is its SupremeCourt. Article III of the United States Constitution states, "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one SupremeCourt, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
The SupremeCourt was subsequently established by the first bill introduced in the United States Senate, the Judiciary Act of 1789. The court convened for the first time in February 1790 in New York City, then serving as the nation’s capital. From 1791 to 1800, it assembled in Philadelphia, which served as the capital while Washington, D.C., was under construction. Starting in February 1801, the court began meeting in Washington, where it occupied various sites in the Capitol building for more than a century. Following the burning of the Capitol by the British in 1814, it met in a private home.
The SupremeCourt today is commonly petitioned for 10,000 cases each year, of which they will review about 80.
During its existence, the Court has been frequently controversial. Some decisions have had long-lasting effects on how the ideals laid out in the Constitution are interpreted.
Frequently, decisions handed down from the Court have been perceived as politicized, as...